OT, so I'm not gonna' jack this thread... just read his stupid book, the man had the intellect of a fifteen year old. (& that was after his editors did their best with it, sad, just sad)

I didn't say he was a literary genius... just a political one.

Oh yeah, alienating everyone in his cabinet so that half of them tried to kill him...
Sure, a real bright bulb on that one.

If I recall properly (I'm nowhere near sure of this), I was for protecting the Kurds with airpower to the point of ensuring sovereignty but against continuing the economic sanctions. But yes, I will say once again that Saddam was an Iraqi problem (though we we can be faulted for supporting the wacko) that should have been solved by an Iraqi bullet. This idea of creating a different culture in Iraq by violent imposition of democracy just doesn't wash. Right now we are looking across the border at Iran's elected leaders. Iraqi elections bring out the same kind of power madness. Reasonable mob rule depends on the mob being reasonable.

I've been very wrong on occasion on how best to repair the damage done by interventionists. The WOT is fast becoming, however, solid evidence of the foolishness of war-making to solve other peoples problems. The risk that was run invading Iraq was obvious to everyone, obvious enough to keep many moral people from running it. This question of who is being moral is one reason why this issue is so emotional. Both sides had moral positions if success was at all likely. War supportors believed the President to have special knowlege and trusted him. He had no special knowlege.

shock denial anger bargaining depression testing acceptance

Bush appears to be reaching the bargaining stage, maybe his supportors should move on as well.

You don't have to explain it - It isn't necessarily true - thats my point! That is just your OPINION nothing more, nothing less. Just because you are enamored with what he accomplished doesn't mean shit. Its just your opinion - you seem to have the two confused - an opinion does not equal a fact, just like most of the info you tout as gospel - they are just a persons interpretation of some raw data not always accurate nor factual.

Hitler, Saddam, and all of them were geniuses.

They had an agenda and didn't care about the consequences as long as they completed the agenda. That is why Bush seems like such and idiot right now, he has his own agenda.

Oh My Pierce, those are fightin words round these parts

No matter how much I hate Bush I'm not going to say he is an idiot because I know he has an agenda. He doesn't care about America, plain and simple, he just cares about his agenda and he is accomplishing that.

You are right, Bush is not an idiot just because he has an agenda. He is an idiot because of many thousands of other reasons :rolleyes:

If those are fight'in words, then it is yesman065 too chock full of emotion - incapable of first learning facts.

Just because yesman065 does not like and does not approve of his actions, then that means he is an idiot? That, so far, has been yesman065 reasoning. Properly posted are those who were geniuses such as Hitler, Saddam, and Stalin. The word genius throws out all personal biases described by 'good and evil'. There is no ‘black and white’ in reality. These men accomplished much in their lifetimes. What is completely irrelevant is yesman065's opinion of those accomplishments. Logic does not judge in terms of 'good and evil'. Logic says every were accomplished people - and their accomplishments, unfortunately, didn't not represent the long term interests of people upon who those accomplishments were imposed. And still no 'good and evil' metric exists. That ‘good and evil’ metric implied by yesman065 is classic of decision based in emotions.

How did George Jr get the naive to support "Mission Accomplished". First he must frame Saddam as evil. That works on those who make decisions based in emotions rather than in reality. Which then begs the question - who really was evil. Him or those who let emotions created their decisions?

That post was a joke, you idiot.

Are you really saying that Saddam wasn't evil? OMG - please justsify that statement. And you still owe me an apology!

Good and evil are just made up by a certain society, every society has a different take on what is good and what is bad. There are no universal morals so you can't be evil but you also can't be good. By our standards, yes, Saddam was evil, but from different viewpoints, he is looked at as a god.

Sorry pierce, but I was speaking specifically to the Vulcan who is implying that the Bush Admin. [i]must frame Saddam as evil.[i]

The Bush admin did have to frame Bush. If they didn't do that then there would be no reason to go to war.

If it was a joke, then the joke was also posted my me. (Covered all options with that post.)

Meanwhile, define evil. Tell me how you know evil using facts. You feel that is evil? Classic emotion. Define evil using facts and logic. After all, Saddam was only doing what kings, queens, and the church did hundreds of years ago. Do you also call the pope evil? If so, then why ... what are your facts?

Tell truth about 'Mission Accomplished'

Jan. 16, 2007 12:00 AM

In the Jan. 10 Republic, cartoonist Steve Benson once again repeated the Big Lie concerning the "Mission Accomplished" banner unfurled when President Bush visited the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The banner signified the completion of the carrier's deployment, which was 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history. The banner did not refer to our commitment in Iraq, nor did the White House demand its display. It was a Navy show, giving proper praise for a mission well done by the crew of the Abraham Lincoln.

True, the actual banner was fabricated in Washington but at the Navy's request. Isn't it time to stop perpetuating this lie?

As for proclaiming the "end of major combat operations," the statement was true but it's utterance was ill-advised since the public cares less about the manner of our troop casualties but rather more about stopping our losses altogether.

And so do I. - Joe Butterworth, Clarkdale

So Bush can use that banner to imply that we won the war four years ago but we can't use that against him? Kind of a double standard isn't it?

The banner signified the completion of the carrier's deployment, which was 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history. The banner did not refer to our commitment in Iraq, nor did the White House demand its display. It was a Navy show, giving proper praise for a mission well done by the crew of the Abraham Lincoln.



Huh?

Then why the fuck was it being presented for the win over Iraq? Bush and them used it as a symbol for the "win" in Iraq, we can use that against him.

It was made by the Bush administration, not the Navy. The Navy doesn't have to request someone else to make signs for them. If it was their idea, they'd have made it.

"Mission Accomplished" was even in George Jr's speech. Rumsfeld who was in Iraq at that time demanded that soundbyte be removed. Back then, Rumsfeld got whatever he wanted. However no one told the Navy to not hang that White House banner. That banner was not about the carrier's deployment. It was a White House soundbyte created by an administration that had no concept of military science 101. Administration that never understood 'planning for the peace' is as essential as planning for the war. Because these people operate on a political ideology, they insisted "America does not do nation building". "Mission Accomplished".

"Mission Accomplished" defines an administration that makes decisions based in political ideology rather than in logic and in America's interests. "Mission Accomplished" could also define other fiascos - Man to Mars and the intentional perversion of science.

"Mission Accomplished" was even in George Jr's speech. Rumsfeld who was in Iraq at that time demanded that soundbyte be removed. Back then, Rumsfeld got whatever he wanted. However no one told the Navy to not hang that White House banner. That banner was not about the carrier's deployment. It was a White House soundbyte created by an administration that had no concept of military science 101. Administration that never understood 'planning for the peace' is as essential as planning for the war. Because these people operate on a political ideology, they insisted "America does not do nation building". "Mission Accomplished".

George Orwell would love you guy.....

You didn't cover squat and you didn't answer my question again! - as usual!!!
Here is your definition since you want to play this game:
EVIL In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behavior and reasoning of human beings — those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction. Evil is sometimes defined as the absence of a good which could and should be present; the absence of which is a void in what should be. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about affliction and death — the opposite of goodness.

Hmm, lets take a poll on this one shall we? Somebody who knows how please set it up - thanks. Whether the pope, kings, queens, a church, a gov't. or anyone else is/are evil has nothing to do with this conversation. NO wiggle room here - defend your incorrect undefesible position that Saddam is not evil - you said it - lets see it. oh and show your work!

So evil is defined by bad and good - which are also subjective terms. After all, all those Jesuits were clearly bad. Therefore Jesuits were evil according to Dominicans who massacred them in the name of god.

This idea of evil, bad, good, void of conscience, etc ... it is all subjective. Why is it subjective? Because it is only defined by perspective - personal bias - rather than by fact. You have arbitrarily defined Saddam as evil. If true, then Saddam also defined himself as evil. Oh. He did not? He used you definition.

And that is the point. There is no good or evil. Cut the concept is used to hype the brown shirts even into a Children's Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople. So tell me how 'good' people did that. Only possible if there is no good and evil; only a world of perspectives.

Using your definition, we now justify the Spanish Inquistions. After all, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it was god’s will? We can rationalize anything using your definitions of ‘evil’.

And again: by framing someone as evil then justified ... well that is how Hitler justified the rape of Poland. Clearly the Poles were also evil.

You disagree with the definition of evil put forth? You are an idiot. Virtually everything outside of math or science is subjective. If everything were all fact there would be no discussion no thought no opinions. Hell we'd all be like you. But don't lose sight of the real discussion here - YOU claimed that Saddam was not evil. Justify that statement. You didn't answer the question again! Stop dancing around it, avoiding it and all your little diversions - Answer the fuckin question. Oh nevermind you're too much of a pussy to admit you're wrong. Here's one for ya "Live and learn" - you should try it sometime. g-nite

P.S. You still owe me an apology